Politics & Government

City Attorney Brian Anderson - a City Father - in Fight for His Job

Much of an independent investigator's report focuses on Anderson's alleged role in leaking information about a city land deal and breaking attorney-client privilege.

Four years ago, embattled city attorney Brian Anderson was working with then Sen. Dan Weber to get the Legislature to pass Dunwoody's charter, a document he helped write.

On Tuesday, he could be fired by the same city council he had a hand in creating.

Dunwoody city officials released a 28-page report that concludes Anderson and City Councilwoman Adrian Bonser leaked privileged information from city meetings about a contentious city land deal they didn't support.    

Find out what's happening in Dunwoodywith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The report alleges that Anderson broke attorney-client privilege, misled investigators about his role in the leaks, and rushed to declare private discussions of the land deal public in an effort to obscure the leaked information.

"Anderson cannot have it both ways," concludes the report, which was written by Bob Wilson, former DeKalb County District Attorney. "He cannot, on the one hand, agree that the discussion of the sale is appropriate for executive session … but then when he is talking to the media claim that the same information is not confidential."

Find out what's happening in Dunwoodywith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The report was released by the city a week after the council held a public vote to fire Anderson. .

At last week's meeting, Anderson told the council he "fully cooperated with the investigation" and that the leak was someone else. He then said that he didn't think that information in the city's executive sessions was, in fact, privileged.

"I do not believe under the Open Records, Open Meeting Act that an actual violation could have occurred," he said.

Councilman Terry Nall said that a vote on the resolution to fire Anderson could come as early as next week. The council's meeting is Tuesday due to the long weekend.

"I fully expect the no-confidence vote to be held at our next scheduled meeting," Nall said.

Anderson did not return e-mails and phone calls seeking comment for this story. He has been suspended with pay since the first vote to fire him.

The report released this week ends a months-long investigation that was called shortly after the new council was seated at the beginning of the year.

The city, led by Mayor Mike Davis, from Jan. 23 and Feb. 3 city executive sessions.

Those privileged discussions were an early look at the city's largest redevelopment project to date.

The city had been approached by John Wieland Homes about buying a 16-acre, city-owned parcel near 4500 North Shallowford Road. Dunwoody officials were considering selling the land as a part of a complex property swap.

Wieland's purchase would have given the city cash to buy the 19-acre former Emory Hospital site across the street and help create a block of properties for a larger Georgetown redevelopment project. The project has since come together as "Project Rennaiassance," but differently than the council outlined in their private meetings.

Between late January and early February, Anderson is alleged to have talked to Dunwoody Crier Publisher Dick Williams, with whom he met regularly. Information Williams later published could only have been gleaned in executive session, the report concludes.

Anderson told investigators that in a meeting with Williams he asked, “So, do you know what (City Manager) Warren (Hutmacher) is up to?” Anderson told investigators he was fishing to see if Williams had heard about the sale of the PVC Farm. Anderson claimed that Williams already knew about the possible sale and then they discussed it.

According to the report, even if Williams had known about the private sessions, the city attorney would not have been able to discuss information about the private sessions without breaching attorney-client privilege and the legal restrictions surrounding executive sessions. 

In an interview with investigators, Anderson said Nall was the source of the leak to Williams, claiming the newspaper publsher had told him that's where he first learned of the land deal.

That differed from other statements and earlier interviews, where Anderson had speculated that council members Bonser or Denis Shortal could be sources of the information.

It also differed from what the Dunwoody Crier printed on Feb. 8, which said, "Dunwoody Council met Friday morning in executive session and sources knowledgeable about the meeting but not members of council say the discussion centered on moving forward in negotiations of the 'PVC Farm.'"

It was not Anderson's only breach of attorney-client privilege with Williams in that time frame, according to the report.

Nall told investigators he knew Anderson had leaked a confidential discussion between the two. Nall met with Williams the night before a Feb. 3 closed council meeting, in which the property sale was to be discussed.

Williams first brought up the city's land deal. Nall said he didn't respond. Then Williams asked about a confidential discussion between Nall and Anderson, according to the report.

Nall had approached Anderson prior to meeting with Williams about a potential conflict-of-interest on an issue of home-based businesses that was coming to the council. Nall told investigators it had to have been leaked by Anderson because he was the only person Nall had talked to about it.

Williams, at the time, confirmed Anderson had given him the information Nall told investigators.

In an interview Monday, Nall said that what prompted the board's vote of no-confidence in Anderson was driven by an accumulation of issues.

"I was stunned to hear that a matter I discussed solely to the city attorney had been mentioned to an outside party," Nall said. "That's not what a council member expects to hear; that's not what a client in an attorney-client privilege expects."

The report alleges that Anderson often changed his story to investigators on who could be the source of the leak. He met four times with investigators, three of which were lengthy interviews, according to the report.

With the investigation pending, Hutmacher said he was told by Anderson, "They will have Adrian (Bonser) nailed in about two days. People talk in Dunwoody."

In an interview with investigators, he speculated it might be Shortal because "positive" parts of the development were being talked about, such as the involvement of John Wieland Homes. During the same interview that Shortal was mentioned, Anderson said Williams told him Nall had leaked the information.

When asked why Anderson didn't mention Nall and Shortal in a previous interview, Anderson "stated that he did not think it was appropriate to 'throw a council member under the bus.'"

"With each subsequent interview, Anderson’s story either completely changed on several key issues, or additional details emerged, which details a reasonable person would have disclosed at the first opportunity," according to the report.

Anderson also changed his stance about the confidentiality of the city's closed meetings. Anderson, as city attorney, signed off on the sessions being closed to the public. However, he changed his mind once the investigation into the leaks was pending, according to the report.

On Feb. 15, days after Davis announced an investigation into the leak, the city received a state open records request to turn over documents from the private sessions.

Anderson decided that a PowerPoint presentation used in the city's closed sessions could be released in regards to the land the city might sell, not purchase. State open meeting laws allow for closed sessions on potential property purchases, but not sales.

It was a reversal of Anderson's position to close the two meetings in the first place. Wilson concludes in his investigation that any land swap between the city and Wieland Homes to set the table for a larger redevelopment project tied the land sale and the city's potential purchase tightly enough to justify an executive session.

Further, Wilson said that Anderson's proposal to release only information about the sale of the PVC Farm would distort the public's understanding of what the city was actually discussing.

Anderson pushed forward to release the documents, according to the report. City Clerk Sharon Lowery told investigators that Anderson's "apparent rush" to make the documents available immediately was inconsistent with how he had responded to other requests for public records. 

When Lowery and Hutmacher disagreed with Anderson about releasing the documents, Anderson sought outside legal counsel for advice. He told investigators that he contacted the Attorney General's office and Georgia Municipal Association, which told him to release the documents. Anderson first said he had talked to senior attorney Stefan Ritter in the Attorney General's office, and later said he had spoken to a paralegal, according to the report.

Anderson began pushing the City Clerk and City Manager to immediately release, in redacted form, the documents discussed during the executive session.

"Anderson had never before pushed to release documents before the due date," the reports says. "It is these investigators’ belief that Anderson was attempting to publicize the documents in hopes that his disclosure of information to Dick Williams would become moot."

Correction: An earlier version of this story said that Anderson responded to a state open-records request from a media outlet. The report does not say it was a media request.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here